Agenda item

To receive reports from Cabinet Members on their portfolios.

Members are reminded that they may ask questions of the Cabinet Member on their reports and portfolio areas but should note that it is not a debate.

No member may ask more than one question plus a supplementary question, unless the time taken by members’ questions does not exceed 30 minutes in total, in which case, second questions will be taken in the order that they are received (Constitution, Chapter 2, part 2, section 12.2)

Cabinet members (listed alphabetically):

Cllr T Adams (Leader / Executive Support)

Cllr A Brown – Planning & Enforcement

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett – Coast

Cllr W Fredericks – Housing & Benefits

Cllr V Gay – Leisure, Culture & Wellbeing

Cllr R Kershaw – Sustainable Growth

Cllr N Lloyd – Environment

Cllr E Seward – Finance, Assets & Legal

Cllr L Shires – Organisational Resources

The Chairman asked Cabinet members if they wished to provide an oral update to their reports. Cllr E Seward informed members that the 2019/2020 final accounts were now completed and signed off by the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee and the Council’s external auditor.

The Chairman invited members to ask questions:

Cllr P Heinrich asked Cllr A Brown how much extra work was being generated for planning officers by the Government, due to mixed messages, lack of clarity on the future planning policy and the many issues around nutrient neutrality. Cllr Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning, replied that there were significant challenges. They had begun with the White Paper issued in 2020. These had been effectively abandoned, and local authorities were still awaiting updated guidance. The Council’s planning team continued to work very hard to serve the public and planning decisions remained above the national standard set for planning authorities. Cllr Brown said that the nutrient neutrality issue had placed additional challenges on officers and the reintroduction of investment zones would add further pressure. There was some positive news regarding nutrient neutrality. Royal Haskoning, consultants to the Norfolk Authorities, had recently undertaken an audit and were due to announce revisions to the original boundaries set out by Natural England, with some key areas being excluded in the future. Cllr Brown concluded by saying that the Council was hoping to move to the next stage for progressing the Local Plan in early 2023, when there would be a clearer idea of how nutrient neutrality would impact on the District going forwards.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked about the joint venture between Natural England and Anglian Water regarding a mitigation plan. He asked for more information about what the Council was doing to try and address the problems caused by nutrient neutrality. Cllr Brown replied that the Natural England calculator would add approximately £5000 to each new dwelling. The auditing and calculation measures brought in by the Council’s own consultants would reduce this by between 30 – 50% which would have a huge impact on affordable housing in particular. He said that he understood that Natural England would accept the revised calculator as it was evidenced based.

Cllr Dr V Holliday asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment how the Council was intending to work with Serco (the Council’s waste collection provider) to improve customer service following the introduction of changes to the waste collection rounds. She said that two residents had contacted her to say that their waste had not been collected since the change-over date, despite several emails to customer services. She said that she had raised the matter of customer services at the recent member briefing and was told that additional training would be put in place. She sought reassurance that the situation would improve soon. In Cllr Lloyd’s absence, the Leader requested more information from Cllr Dr Holliday so that he could look into it and provide a full written response.

Cllr N Dixon said that he wished to put a question to the Leader, Cllr Adams. He said that the Administration had stated that it was keen to learn from past mistakes and he wondered if the Leader could elaborate on what actions had been taken following the publication of the 2019/2020 Audit results report, particularly regarding the reference to the inappropriate behaviour of two councillors.  The Leader replied that he felt all the matters had been addressed via the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee (GRAC). There had been some poor practice inherited from the previous administration that had been corrected. He said that he wanted to look forwards now. A Police investigation and an external audit had found that no one had benefitted from the procurement work referenced in the results report. There had also been no concerns regarding the cost of that work. His priority was to focus on the key issues affecting residents now such as the cost of living crisis, nutrient neutrality, energy costs and affordable housing. He concluded by saying that the Council was running very well and the new management structure cost less than the previous one. He felt that this was ‘smoke and mirrors’ and that the main opposition group was focussing on the past.

Cllr J Rest referred to page 51 of the agenda and asked Cllr Seward, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets, about the vacant building in North Lodge Park, Cromer. The closing date for expressions of interest was 12^th September and he asked whether the Portfolio Holder could provide an update. Cllr Seward replied that he had not been provided with any details yet. He was due to have a meeting with the Estates Team soon and would be able to provide details after that.

Cllr S Penfold asked Cllr W Fredericks, Portfolio Holder for Housing, how the issue of nutrient neutrality was impacting on the building of affordable homes in the District. Cllr Fredericks replied that currently, 110 affordable homes could not be progressed. She added that she was concerned about future numbers as the problem could deter planning applications.

Cllr P Fisher asked Cllr R Kershaw, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, whether the District had seen a recovery in visitor numbers since the pandemic. Cllr Kershaw replied that during 2021, 6.02m visitor trips were made to North Norfolk, generating £365m – an increase over 2020, which indicated that numbers were recovering quite well.

Cllr G Hayman asked Cllr N Lloyd, Portfolio Holder for Environment, about the ongoing rat problem in Cromer. He said that work to address the issue had been undertaken on the west side of the promenade but he wondered what more could be done on the east side as it was an issue at all levels. The Leader, Cllr Adams, replied in Cllr Lloyd’s absence. He said that there was extensive work being undertaken to deal with the issue, including baiting on both the east and west sides of the town. He acknowledged that it was a problem but it should be recognised that it was a case of just managing the issue as food sources were prevalent on the cliff tops in particular. In addition, there were some locations in the east that were on private land which could be quite challenging to access. He suggested that Cllr Hayman spoke to officers about any specific locations that he was aware of and they could update him on whether they were being dealt with.

Cllr C Cushing asked Cllr R Kershaw, Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth, why his written report was so brief. He asked whether that was all that was happening within his portfolio. Cllr Kershaw replied that there was a lot that was going on. The Council regularly engaged with local businesses across the District and establishing their concerns. Many were finding the energy crisis particularly challenging and this was impacting on their wider business functions – including the recruitment of apprentices, which they were reluctant to commit to in such a volatile environment. He said that there was a new film in production at West Raynham and there had been an increase in new hospitality companies investing in the District.

Cllr S Butikofer asked the Leader whether he agreed that it would be helpful if Norfolk County Council could be more informative about their assets in the North Norfolk area, so that the two councils could work collaboratively to secure the best outcomes for the residents of North Norfolk. She referred to Holt Hall, where the sale had fallen through. There had previously been a request for it to be used to house refugees but this had been refused as was in the process of being sold. The Leader agreed with Cllr Butikofer and said that Holt Hall was an example where things could have been done differently and there was a good opportunity for the County Council to engage with the community.

Cllr G Hayman asked Cllr V Gay, Portfolio Holder for Culture, about the decline in sales for the Cromer Pier show. He asked what contingencies were in place to reduce the strain on the operator and what is the Council was doing to promote the Pier show. Cllr Gay was not present and it was agreed that a written response would be provided.